Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.

A few people have pointed out that the magazine has featured plenty of villains and criminals on its covers in the past, including Charles Manson in 1970. And the magazine (like other publications) only has a few photos of the man to choose from, which is why we've actually seen this image in several other places before, including The New York Times (and this website.) But the combination of Tsarnaev's casual, glamorous appearance with the famously "cool" magazine's attitude just isn't sitting well with most people.

I really don't see it as them glamorizing or sympathizing or glorifying him at all. RS is known (to anyone who has actually read an article or two from them not related to a musician) to write thorough and thought provoking articles. Sometimes they are hard hitting. I think they intended the cover to illustrate that someone can look and seem normal, but are capable of atrocities.

That being said, I understand that not everyone is able to look at this without emotions clouding their view. I also understand that the victims and their families may feel offended by the cover. For this reason I feel it is in very poor taste and if people want to refuse to buy or sell the issue, I am not bothered by it.

The fact that he's good looking further illustrates the point I believe they were going for. I also think that is part of the emotional response to the cover. I so cannot explain the science behind it, but most people react more favorably to attractive people than homely people and I think some people are upset by their own subconscious reaction to his face a split second before they realize who he is.

Quoting quickbooksworm:

People are missing the point. They aren't glorifying him. They are drawing attention to how normal he was. He could be anyone any of us know. He isn't a stereotype of a terrorist or mass murderer.

Not gonna lie, he makes a good cover in part because he's kinda hot. And I think that may be part of the issue. Charles Manson just LOOKS like a psycho, this guy is normal.

The fact that he's good looking further illustrates the point I believe they were going for. I also think that is part of the emotional response to the cover. I so cannot explain the science behind it, but most people react more favorably to attractive people than homely people and I think some people are upset by their own subconscious reaction to his face a split second before they realize who he is.

Quoting quickbooksworm:

People are missing the point. They aren't glorifying him. They are drawing attention to how normal he was. He could be anyone any of us know. He isn't a stereotype of a terrorist or mass murderer.

Not gonna lie, he makes a good cover in part because he's kinda hot. And I think that may be part of the issue. Charles Manson just LOOKS like a psycho, this guy is normal.

Spot on.

Many people, in that split second of seeing this face, think...'wow, what a nice looking guy'.....then reality sets in and they realize who it is.

They can't admit to their first reaction so they find themselves getting even more upset over his actions. Acting out towards his actions even more, as in the uproar over the cover.

He is a nice looking kid. Nice looking people do horrific things all the time. We need to see his face, learn his story. That is not glorifying what he did or who he was, is or will be. It is reality. Some people would rather bury their heads in the sand and not take a peek out.

Send me email updates about messages I've received on the site and the latest news from The CafeMom Team.
By signing up, you certify that you are female and accept the Terms of Service and have read the
Privacy Policy.